,
10 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
Since there's been some buzz about her, I collected some tweets mentioning TulsiGabbard too. I have 50K tweets from Feb 27 - Mar 4 and thought I'd check the data that Geoff tweeted to compare. And I found some problems.
Looking at the spreadsheet of accounts created in the past 5 months and tweeting 100+ times per day:
These accounts are definitely high volume. I sorted them by highest tpd and looked up the actual tweets that caused them to be lumped into this dataset.
These accounts are definitely high volume. I sorted them by highest tpd and looked up the actual tweets that caused them to be lumped into this dataset.
The account tweeting the most on this spreadsheet, Alpha_Omega_Yah (1433 tpd) is in this dataset because they retweeted this single tweet:
it's possible this account is programmed to auto-tweet certain hashtags but the account is not supporting Gabbard
it's possible this account is programmed to auto-tweet certain hashtags but the account is not supporting Gabbard
TooTrue17 (783 tpd) is in this dataset because they retweeted this single retweet. most retweeted accounts and hashtags don't seem related to Tulsi Gabbard. TooTrue17 does not appear to be supporting Tulsi Gabbard.
CovfefeAnd (353 tpd) is a #Resist account and appears in this dataset due to one single reply: appears they are against Tulsi, not supporting her.
MiaHassan10 (103 tpd) does not appear to be a fan of Tulsi Gabbard. To the contrary, this account is clearly trolling her. twitter.com/search?q=from%…
I could not find any tweets or retweets from nembotavy_0101 (918 tpd) mentioning Tulsi Gabbard. Not sure why they are included this dataset.
In Geoff's thread, he's not blatantly accusing Gabbard of astroturfing, but if he's tweeting about it and he made graphs then there must be something odd going on right? That's what's implied.
But there's no detailed analysis and his wording is vague enough to deflect criticism.
But there's no detailed analysis and his wording is vague enough to deflect criticism.
That's a problem because the public has no way to factcheck twitter threads like this (neither do journalists) People are left to draw their own conclusions.
There's no meaningful analysis. And if you're not doing any actual data analysis then why do it at all?
There's no meaningful analysis. And if you're not doing any actual data analysis then why do it at all?
Obligatory disclaimer: I am not for or against Tulsi Gabbard. I am for upping the bar on what we consider to be *helpful* Twitter analysis and also helping the public understand what graphs mean.
